Hooge v. Sugerman et al

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JORDAN M. HOOGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
L. MICHELLE SUGERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:25-cv-00592-APG-NJK
Order
[Docket No. 48]
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery or, in the alternative, to
extend discovery. Docket No. 48; see also Docket Nos. 15 (Defendants’ motion to dismiss), 34
(Defendants’ motion for leave to supplement motion to dismiss). Plaintiff filed a response. Docket
No. 53. 	Defendants filed a reply. 	Docket No. 54. 	The motion is properly resolved without a
hearing. See Local Rule 78-1.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On May 21, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Docket No. 15. On October 8,
2025, Defendants filed a motion for leave to supplement their motion to dismiss. Docket No. 34.
On November 19, 2025, Defendants filed an emergency motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 40.
The Court denied that motion without prejudice. 	Docket No. 43. 	On November 26, 2025,
Defendants filed a stipulation for substitution of counsel and the instant motion to stay discovery
or, in the alternative, to extend discovery. Docket Nos. 47, 48. The Court granted the stipulation
for substitution of counsel. Docket No. 52. The Court now considers the motion to stay discovery
and the alternative request to extend discovery in turn. Docket No. 48.
II. 	MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of
Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide
for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.”
Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). 	The party seeking to avoid
discovery bears the burden of persuasion. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175
Case 2:26-cv-00180-RJS Document 55 Filed 12/19/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). Discovery may be stayed when: (1) there is a pending motion
that is potentially dispositive in nature and scope; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be
decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the
merits of the potentially dispositive motion and finds the motion sufficiently meritorious to warrant
a stay. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). The Court is
guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of cases. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602-03.
The circumstances of this case do not warrant a stay of discovery at this late stage in the
discovery period. 	The underlying motion to dismiss was filed on May 21, 2025, and has been
briefed since August 1, 2025. See Docket Nos. 15, 18, 26. Notwithstanding the pendency of that
motion, the moving Defendants did not seek to stay discovery at that time.1 	The moving
Defendants filed the pending motion to stay discovery on November 26, 2025, just three weeks
before the discovery cutoff. 	See Docket Nos. 48, 37 (order extending discovery cutoff to
December 17, 2025). The discovery period closed just five days after the instant motion was fully
briefed. 	See Docket No. 54 (Defendants’ reply filed on December 12, 2025). 	Given these
circumstances, Plaintiff asserts that “[a] stay would not be just speedy, or inexpensive” and “would
contradict the prime directive of [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1].” Docket No. 53 at 3.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that a stay of discovery is not warranted here. The moving
Defendants did not properly seek to stay their discovery obligations and their reply brief to the
motion to stay discovery was filed with just five days left in the discovery period. 	Given the
circumstances, it does not advance the objectives in Rule 1 to stay discovery at this late juncture.
E.g., JoshCo Tech, LLC v. MJJ&L Holdings, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-00428-APG-NJK, 2020 WL
8254262, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 2, 2020).
III. 	MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
In the alternative, Defendants request that the Court extend discovery. 	Docket No. 48.
Defendants submit that the appearance of new counsel in this matter and newly substituted counsel
1 Defendants later filed an emergency motion to stay discovery on November 19, 2025.
Docket No. 40.
Case 2:26-cv-00180-RJS Document 55 Filed 12/19/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
needing additional time to familiarize themselves with this litigation are factors that the Court
should consider in determining whether good cause exists. See id. at 10-11. Further, Defendants
assert that substitution of counsel was made in order to protect their interests, and they attached a
declaration of their insurance carrier’s claim director to attest to the reason behind the decision to
substitute counsel. 	See id. at 11; see also Docket No. 48-3. 	Additionally, Defendants seek to
reopen the deadline to file initial expert disclosures. See Docket No. 48 at 11. Plaintiff opposes
both requests. See Docket No. 53.
First, as Plaintiff points out, Defendants incorrectly assert only the good cause standard to
reopen the expert witness deadline, when both good cause and excusable neglect must be shown
in order to reopen an expired deadline. See Docket No. 53 at 3; see also LR IA 6-1 (“A request
made after the expiration of the specified period will not be granted unless the movant or attorney
demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the deadline expired was the result of
excusable neglect”); see also LR 26-3; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). The deadline for initial
expert disclosures expired prior to the instant motion’s filing. See Docket No. 27 at 1 (setting a
September 18, 2025, deadline for initial expert disclosures). Therefore, the instant request fails to
address the appropriate standard.
Second, Defendants fail to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 26-3 for motions
to extend time. The instant motion fails to include a statement specifying the discovery completed,
a specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed, and a proposed schedule for
completing all remaining discovery. See LR 26-3(a)-(d).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 48.
Further, the Court DENIES Defendants’ alternative request to extend discovery. Docket No. 48.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 19, 2025
______________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:26-cv-00180-RJS Document 55 Filed 12/19/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 3